Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/27

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Split printing
From: George Huczek <ghuczek@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 05:42:27 -0600

Mark,
I would be interested to hear your objections to the posting you were
replying to.  Please be as specific as possible in describing what you
found to be inaccurate and objectionable to KT's post.  I'm also interested
in why you were insulted by the information provided.  I hope you will take
the opportunity to explain.
George



At 12:27 AM 27/01/99 -0800, Mark wrote:
>
>> Printing, without dodging or burning in two exposures at a different
contrast levels, will only give you a contrast # something in between the
two. Each VC filter allows green and blue light to pass through in varying
amounts. It really doesn't matter whether the blue light arrives in one
exposure, and then the green, or the blue/green light is delivered all at
once. The end result would be the same. I don't think the two exposure
printing without masking can achieve tonal distributions that aren't
achievable with a single exposure under the appropriate filtration. Of
course, burning and dodging with different filters is a very powerful
method of modifying images, but, there is no magic can be worked by simple
split filtering. Such a result would have to come from changing the
curvature of the characteristic of the emulsion and that is fixed by the
emulsion itself.
>> I truly belive that mostly split printing proponents see something there
for their efforts. Like so many Leica things, it's just an issue of
personal preference, on which reasonable minds can and do disagree.
>> For further reading, I recommend the article "Variable Contrast Papers
Revealed", by Phil Davis in Photo Techniques, Sept-Oct 1994.
>> 
>> KT
>
>I have printed black and white for thirty four years, the last four
>using the split printing technique. Though you speak with great
>authority KT your assertions are patently false, each and every one of
>them. It might be more interesting to find out from where you got them.
>Is it the article you are quoting? 
>You never quite got around to telling us just how much experience you've
>had with the technique. Have you tried it even once? I doubt it.
>In the nice few months I have been on the lug I have said a few dumb,
>non backed up things and read quite a few but nothing comes close to
>being as insulting to any ones intelligence as this.
>Mark Rabiner
>